Family Matters No.72 Summer 2005 Australian Institute of Family Studies 78

The retreat from marriage

The concern over marriage in the United States stems fromthe decline in the numbers of people marrying, althoughevidence suggests that people still want or intend to marry(Cherlin 2004)1. The factors underlying the retreat frommarriage are complex and interwoven. It can be difficult toidentify whether a given factor is a cause of the retreat ora consequence of it because most factors can be perceivedas both cause and consequence (Smock 2004). The trendtowards cohabitation is a prime example of this difficulty –it is posited as a factor contributing to the deinstitutional-isation of marriage (Cherlin 2004) but can also be seen asarising out of the changes in the meaning of marriage(Kiernan 2004). Nonetheless, it is clear that the meaning ofmarriage and its place in peoples’ lives has changed dra-matically in the past 100 or so years. For instance, it is nolonger necessary to be married to be regarded as an adult,to purchase property, or to have status in legal terms or ina public or social arena (Coontz 2004). According to Cher-lin (2004), the manifold social changes over the pastcentury have culminated in the deinstitutionalisation ofmarriage, wherein behaviour is governed less by socialnorms and more by individual concerns.

One of the advantages marriage has provided is “enforce-able trust”: because a commitment made in public beforefamily and friends, and perhaps in a religious setting, ismore difficult to break, partners can feel more confidentabout their investment in the relationship (Cherlin 2004).However, with cohabitation becoming more common and widely accepted and acquiring many of the rights once attached only to marriage, the power of those exter-nal forces may diminish, and the capacity of marriage to strengthen enforceable trust may increasingly rely onthe weight partners give to the public commitment Cherlin 2004).

Two major, long-term transformations in cultural and mate-rial values have driven many of the changes that haveimpacted on the institution of marriage. The first of thesetransformations has been from marriage as an essentiallyeconomic and political institution in which romantic lovewas considered of secondary importance, if not completelyirrelevant (Coontz 2004; Gillis 2004), to a relationship ofcompanions – the “companionate marriage” described byBurgess and Locke (1945, cited in Cherlin 2004) – charac-terised by a degree of emphasis on emotion and sentimentthat would have been unthinkable to spouses in previouscenturies (Cherlin 2004).

hen discussing the current “state of the fam-ily”, academics, politicians, and socialcommentators typically draw attention totrends in four key indicators across the pasthundred or so years – the decline in marriage

rates, the increase in divorce rates, the rise in the numberof ex-nuptial births, and the growth of cohabitation. Someacademics and commentators in the United States havesuggested that these trends represent a retreat from mar-riage and, as such, marriage may be, at the very least, at a“crossroads” (Hawkins 2002). Others have declared thatthese trends amount to a “marriage crisis” (Blankenhorn2003; Gallagher 2003a, 2003b).

The political and policy-related discussions about the so-called marriage crisis in the United States are vigorous, andtend to centre on whether couples and their children willbe more likely to flourish within a marital or cohabitingrelationship. In Europe the tenor of the discussions aboutthese trends has a different focus, is somewhat calmer, andthe concern is about how to best support all familiesregardless of the marital status (or sexual orientation) ofthe parents (Kiernan 2004). Even though the trends (if notthe actual rates) in family formation and dissolution inAustralia are similar to those in both Europe and theUnited States, there has been comparatively little debateand discussion here regarding the decline in marriage ratesand the implications for Australian society.

The future of marriage was the theme of the 2003 NationalCouncil on Family Relations (NCFR) conference. Severalspeakers at that conference were invited to submit theirpapers to a special issue of the Journal of Marriage and Fam-ily. A group of respected scholars then commented on theissues raised in those papers and on the future of marriage inthe long term. The special edition, incorporating the papersand the invited comments, appeared in November 2004. (Asummary of the 2003 NCFR conference was published inFamily Matters, No. 66, pp.60-61.)

This article in no way assumes that conditions in the UnitedStates or Western Europe are automatically applicable to theAustralian context. Rather, the article aims to inform the dis-cussion in Australia by summarising two aspects of the“conversation” in the special edition of the Journal of Mar-riage and Family – the decline in marriage and the rise incohabitation. The article outlines the explanations for thetrends offered by researchers and scholars at the NCFR con-ference and their views on the ways in which some of thepatterns could play out in the long term.

With marriage rates falling and cohabitation rising in many Western societies,there are concerns in some quarters that the future of marriage is bleak. What liesbeneath these trends, and what are the implications for the institution of marriage? ROBYN PARKER discusses some of the current international thinking.

Perspectives on the future of marriage

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

WW

79Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters No.72 Summer 2005

The emergence of love as the primary reason to marrylargely began with a series of cultural, political and socialchanges across the 17th century in which the authority ofparents and governments to determine who could or wouldmarry whom was eroded, and the notion of spouses asfriends and lovers that is so prevalent in the 20th centurybegan to take hold (Coontz 2004, 2005). The companionatemarriages referred to by Burgess and Locke were breadwin-ner-homemaker marriages marked by the gendered divisionof labour, and their success increasingly came to be meas-ured by emotional satisfaction – the satisfaction spousesderived from being “good providers, good homemakers, andresponsible parents” (Cherlin 2004: 851).

The second transformation began during the 1960s andgathered momentum through the 1970s. There was a trendtowards completing education, birth rates fell, the numberof dual-earner families increased as women’s participation inthe workforce grew, and the measure of a marriage increas-ingly became each spouses’ own self-development andexpression, becoming what Cherlin (2004: 852) calls the“individualised” marriage. This transition was accompaniedby changes in family law, in particular the advent of no-faultdivorce. Seltzer (2004) sees the impact of high divorce ratesreflected in the delaying or avoidance of marriage.

In terms of the psychological needs that can be derivedfrom social connections such as marriage, the greaterpropensity to separate has undermined the role of mar-riage in providing the type of emotional connection fromwhich a sense of security can be derived (Cutrona 2004),and heightened the sense of risk associated with investingin a marital relationship (Kiernan 2004). The uncertaintythat has come to be attached to marriage is considered bysome researchers to be one of a range of factors involved inthe growth in cohabitation (Cutrona 2004; Kiernan 2004).

The growth of cohabitation

A growing preference for cohabitation can also be seen as anoutcome of the widespread access to contraception thateroded the connection between marriage, sexual activity,conception, childbirth and parenting (Coontz 2004; Kiernan2004), of increased secularisation, the need for women toexperience greater autonomy, and as a way of avoiding thedependence, particularly of women, perceived to be inher-ent in marriage (Kiernan 2004). Alternatively, Gillis (2004:990) suggests that people tend towards cohabitation as ameans of dealing with the “outsized” expectations attachedto marriage.

However several authors note a more concrete reason forchoosing cohabitation rather than marriage. A consistenttheme throughout most of these articles is the role of eco-nomic stability and security in impeding the capacity ofcouples to afford to get married and stay married. Cohabita-tion becomes the obvious choice, being less costly infinancial terms while meeting (at least) some needs for inti-macy and support (Seltzer 2004). Seltzer also suggests thatmarriage rates may rise if couples develop more confidencein their economic future – although cohabitation rates arehigher among those whose education might suggest a greaterprobability of economic security. Nonetheless, evidence thatbeing better-off financially increases the likelihood of gettingand remaining married can be found in literally scores ofstudies (Smock 2004).

Just as the meaning of marriage has altered over time,cohabitation has also been subject to changes in meaning,and its place in the family system has varied according to thedegree of social, legal and policy acceptance (Seltzer 2004).For instance, several types of cohabiting relationships havebeen identified: casual, temporary, convenient relationships

A growing preference for cohabitation can also be seen as an outcome of the widespread access to contraception that eroded the connection between marriage, sexual activity, conception, childbirth and parenting.

Family Matters No.72 Summer 2005 Australian Institute of Family Studies 80

that involve little commitment; extensions of an intimaterelationship that will last only as long as the partners enjoybeing together; a test of the relationship to assess whethermarriage is likely to succeed; or an alternative to marriagebased on views about marriage as an institution or for prac-tical or pragmatic reasons (de Vaus 2004; Seltzer 2004).Attitudes towards cohabitation can also vary according toother life circumstances. For example, women participatingin the long-running United States National Survey of Fami-lies and Households who had dropped out of secondaryschool were more than twice as likely as college graduates todisapprove of cohabitation that does not include plans formarriage (Edin, Kefalas and Reed 2004).

Other developments in the meaning and acceptance ofcohabitation occur as the number of couples involved in thevarious types of cohabiting relationships changes. At thenational level, cohabitation is accepted to varying degrees indifferent countries, and in different regions within a country(see, for example, Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004;Seltzer 2004). Drawing on analysis of the cohabitationtrends in Sweden (outlined by Hoem and Hoem 1988), Kier-nan (2002) suggested a four-stage process of acceptance ofcohabitation at a national level: in the first stage, cohabita-tion is outside of, or limited to, the edges of mainstreamsociety while direct marriage occurs for the majority of thepopulation; in the second stage, cohabitation is seen as away of testing the strength of a relationship before commit-ting to marriage; acceptance of cohabitation as analternative to marriage that may also involve parenthoodoccurs in stage three; and in stage four, cohabitation is indis-tinguishable from marriage.

Greece and Spain are considered to be in stage one, whileSweden and Denmark are clearly in stage four. It is sug-gested that the United States is in transition betweenstages two and three (Smock and Gupta 2002); Australiawould probably be similarly located. Interestingly, thisgrowth in the incidence and acceptance of cohabitationwas unforeseen among scholars and researchers in the1970s (Cherlin 2004), but it has received a great deal ofattention in recent years because of the effect it has had onthe formation and life experiences of couples and families.

Two key aspects of cohabitation are typically commentedupon: the instability of cohabiting relationships, and thelong-term implications of increasing numbers of childrenwho are or will be born to unmarried parents.

An increasing proportion of cohabiting relationships involvechildren (Seltzer 2004). The relationships of cohabiting par-ents appear to be more stable than the relationships of thosewithout children, although fewer cohabiting relationshipsnow end in marriage than in the past (Wu and Balakrishnan1995; Cherlin 2004; Seltzer 2004)2. The range of reasonsbehind the decision to cohabit may go some way towardsexplaining their instability (Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004). Stability may also be related to theperceived place of cohabitation in the kinship system.Although cohabitation is accepted to a degree within andacross nations, in many countries it is not yet regarded asequal to marriage and it does not have the formal and infor-mal support that marriage does (Seltzer 2004).

Another key element in the discussions about marriage andcohabitation is the potential long-term impact on childrenof being raised by unmarried parents. The weight of evi-dence clearly demonstrates that children do better on a

range of indicators when raised by two happily, continu-ously married parents (Amato 2004) and tend to benegatively affected by transient relationships (Cutrona2004). Thus, the greater propensity for cohabiting relation-ships than marriages to end in separation is problematic forchildren (Cutrona 2004)3.

However, if there is an intergenerational transmission ofvalues in favour of cohabitation, and a rising proportion ofadults whose parents were unmarried, then a social milieumay develop in which cohabitation is acceptable in its ownright, rather than as a stepping stone to marriage (Seltzer2004; Smock 2004). If cohabitation does become the morecommon pathway to family formation, then might cohab-iting relationships become as stable as marriages (LeBourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004)? Evidence fromCanada suggests that this might indeed occur: in Quebec,where cohabitation is far more widespread than in the restof Canada, the stability of direct and indirect marriages isvery similar (Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004).

Is marriage really undervalued?Although there has been a movement away from gettingmarried, it is not clear that marriage is regarded in a com-pletely negative light. In fact, it may be more accurate to saythat marriage is more highly regarded in contemporary soci-ety than in the past. Attitudes expressed by respondents ina survey conducted by the National Marriage Project (White-head and Popenoe 2001) suggest that marriage is seen ashaving prestige, and in Cherlin’s own current work, qualita-tive data convey the perception of marriage as a sign ofachievement rather than a rite of passage (Cherlin 2004).

In a broader, historical sense, Gillis goes so far as to suggestthat marriage has been “promoted to a level once reservedfor sacred callings” (2004: 990), making it much harder toachieve because the prerequisites are placed further out ofreach (Seltzer 2004). This is especially so for those on lowincomes, who on the surface appear to have abandonedmarriage.

However, research shows that their standards for marriageare similar to those of the middle class; they want andexpect as much from marriage, but their life circumstancesmake meeting those expectations less likely (Edin, Kefalasand Reed 2004). The unmarried parents in Edin and col-leagues’ study were drawn from three qualitative studies inpoor neighbourhoods across six states. Participants in thesestudies – 162 unmarried White, African-American, andPuerto Rican mothers in Philadelphia; 460 non-custodialfathers in Philadelphia, South Carolina, and Texas; and 50unmarried couples in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and NewYork – reported that before they marry they require a mort-gage and a car loan, some savings, and sufficient surplusfunds to pay for a “decent” wedding, since being married bya justice of the peace is an indication that marriage is nottaken seriously. (See also Cherlin 2004.)

Certain expectations remain gendered: both men andwomen expect that the male should be able to provide for hisfamily (Manning and Smock 2003). But the prerequisites arenot only financial. While women want a partner who is“totally devoted” and “understanding”, a lack of trust thattheir partner will treat them well or be faithful, avoid drug oralcohol abuse, or abide by the law, drives them to delay mar-riage for perhaps several years (Edin et al. 2004). Edin et al.describe the values demonstrated by their respondents as a

81Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters No.72 Summer 2005

“complete and dramatic reversal of 1950s marriage norms”(p. 1012). To them, rushing into marriage before being “set”is irresponsible – “marrying well” (in the sense of being wellprepared) is the way to avoid divorce (p. 1013).

These findings highlight the contribution of the “ecologicalniche” (Bradbury and Karney 2004: 872) in which couplesexist – that is, the events and circumstances that couplesencounter in either the short or long term, and to whichthey must adapt and adjust. Elements of social context,such as housing, healthcare, economic development, etc.were consistently nominated among the authors of thesepapers as critical elements in the development of strongand stable marriages (Smock 2004).

So what might be the future of marriage?

Several demographic trends have converged in the pastthree decades, leading some social scientists and commen-tators to warn that the institution of marriage is threatened,with severe long-term consequences for couples, familiesand particularly children. Certainly there seems to be agree-ment among most of the authors featured in the articlesincluded here that the weakening of the position of marriageas the primary, favoured mechanism of social organisationis, to a greater or lesser degree, worrisome.

But according to Coontz (2004: 975) it would appear thatfor some sections of the population the retreat from mar-riage has less to do with marriage as an institution andmore to do with not being able to ensure marital “success”– the prevailing attitudes among younger cohorts who aredelaying or avoiding marriage are not so much “anti-mar-riage” as “anti-divorce”. Although social demographersappear to have a less than stellar record of predicting socialtrends – after all, none in the 1950s or 1960s predicted thecurrent rates of cohabitation (Cherlin 2004: 857) – someauthors have speculated on the ways in which current

trends, particularly with respect to marriage and cohabita-tion, may play out.

In the articles cited in this paper, some of the comments onthe future of marriage are framed within the context ofattempts to reverse the retreat from marriage underwayacross the United States – attempts that include an injectionof federal funding for prevention and intervention programsdesigned to promote strong, healthy relationships. Studiescurrently underway by Cherlin and his colleagues, and byEdin et al. show that, for low-income groups, getting marriedis contingent on economic and social circumstances, andunless those circumstances improve the cohabiting coupleswill probably continue to avoid or delay marriage. Edin et al(2004) note that improving relationship skills for thesegroups may help them more effectively negotiate theireveryday lives and relationships, but is unlikely to encour-age higher rates of marriage if their chances of financialsecurity and potential for pathways for a rewarding life otherthan having children are unchanged. On the other hand,since cohabitation is also popular among those with highereducation, an improving national economy may be no guar-antee of a swing towards marriage (Seltzer 2004).

Cherlin (2004) tentatively suggests three alternativefutures for marriage. In the first (and least likely to occur),marriage becomes re-institutionalised. However, in orderfor this to happen, several trends would need to bereversed – more people marrying, more children born tomarried couples, fewer divorces, a reduction in women’sparticipation in the workforce, marital roles divided morestrongly by gender, and the emphasis on the social ratherthan personal aspects of marriage.

The second alternative sees little change in the current sit-uation, at least in the short term. Marriage will retain itsvalue as a symbol of achievement and prestige, but if, or as,the legal and social gap between marriage and cohabitation

Although there has been a movement away from getting married, it is not clear that marriage is regarded in a completely negative light. In fact, it may be more accurate to say that marriage is more highly regarded in contemporary society than in the past.

Family Matters No.72 Summer 2005 Australian Institute of Family Studies 82

Endnotes1 Marriage rates in Australia have generally declined over the past 20 years,

although they appear to be reasonably stable since 2001 (ABS 2004).2 In Australia most convert to marriage or separation within five years

(de Vaus, Qu and Weston, 2003).3 Cutrona also notes that the same could be said for all childbearing

unions.

ReferencesABS (2004), Marriages, Australia, Catalogue No. 3306.0.55.001, Australian

Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.Amato, P. (2004), “Tension between institutional and individual views of

marriage”, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no.4, pp. 959-965.Blankenhorn, D. (2003) “The marriage problem”, Propositions, Spring

2003, http://www.propositionsonline.com/html/the_marriage_problem.html, accessed 20 September 2005.

Bradbury, T. & Karney, B. (2004), “Understanding and altering the longi-tudinal course of marriage”, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66,no. 4, pp. 862-879.

Caruana, C. (2002), “Relationship diversity and the law”, FamilyMatters, no. 63, pp. 60-65.

Cherlin, A. (2004), “The deinstitutionalisation of American marriage”,Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no.4, pp. 848-861.

Coontz, S. (2004), “The world historical transformation of marriage”,Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 974-979.

Coontz, S. (2005), Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy orhow love conquered marriage, Viking, New York.

Cutrona, C.E. (2004), “A psychological perspective: Marriage and thesocial provisions of relationships”, Journal of Marriage and Family,vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 992-999.

De Vaus, D. (2004), Diversity and change in Australian families:Statistical profiles, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

De Vaus, D., Qu, L. & Weston, R., (2003), “Premarital cohabitation andsubsequent marital stability”, Family Matters, no. 65, pp. 34-39.

De Vaus, D. & Wolcott, I. (eds) (1997), Australian family profiles: Social and demographic patterns, Australian Institute ofFamily Studies, Melbourne.

Edin, K., Kefalas, M.J. & Reed, J.M., (2004), “A peek inside the black box: What marriage means for poor unmarried parents”,Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no.4, pp. 1007-1014.

Gallagher, M. (2003a), “What marriage is for”, The Weekly Standard, vol. 8,issue 45, http://www.weeklystandard.com, accessed 20 September 2005.

Gallagher, M. (2003b), “The divorce thing”, National Review Online, August2003, http://www.nationalreview.com, accessed 20 September 2005.

Gillis, J. (2004), “Marriages of the mind”, Journal of Marriage andFamily, vol. 66, no.4, pp. 988-991.

Hawkins, A.J. (2002), “Introduction”, In A.J. Hawkins, L.D. Wardle, &D.G. Coolidge (eds), Revitalizing the institution of marriage for thetwenty-first century (xiii-xxiv), Connecticut: Praeger.

Hoem, J. & Hoem, B. (1988), “The Swedish family: Aspects of contempo-rary developments”, Journal of Family Issues, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 397-424.

Kiernan, K. (2002), “Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, issues, andimplications”, in A. Booth & A.C. Crouter (eds), Just living together:Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy(pp. 3-31), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Kiernan, K. (2004), “Redrawing the boundaries of marriage”, Journal ofMarriage and Family, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 980-987.

Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2004), Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing mar-riage? Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 929-942.

Manning, W. & Smock, P., (2003), Measuring and modeling cohabitation:New perspectives from qualitative data, Working Paper 2003-10.Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green StateUniversity, Bowling Green, OH.

Seltzer, J.A. (2004), “Cohabitation in the United States and Britain:Demography, kinship, and the future”, Journal of Marriage andFamily, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 921-928.

Smart, D. (2002), “Relationships, marriage and parenthood”, FamilyMatters, no. 63, Spring/Summer, pp. 28-35.

Smock, P.J. (2004), “The wax and wane of marriage: Prospects for mar-riage in the 21st century”, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66,no. 4, pp. 966-973.

Smock, P.J. & Gupta, S., (2002), “Cohabitation in contemporary NorthAmerica”, in A. Booth & A.C. Crouter (eds), Just living together:Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy(pp. 53-84), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Whitehead, B.D. & Popenoe, D. (2001), The State of our Unions, 2001:The Social Health of Marriage in America, National Marriage Project,Rutgers, New Jersey, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2001.ht, accessed 5 December 2005.

Wu, Z, & Balakrishnan, T.R. (1995), “Dissolution of premarital cohabita-tion in Canada”, Demography, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 521-532.

Robyn Parker is a Senior Research Officer at the Australian Insti-tute of Family Studies.

continues to close then the need for marriage will ulti-mately fade.

The third option would see marriage eventually becomingjust one of a range of romantic, albeit fragile, relationships.That such a perception is not yet prevalent in the UnitedStates is likely to be due to “institutional lag”: people arestill marrying because they have not yet formed the opin-ion that marriage is of less importance.

Should marriage and cohabitation come to be viewed asequal, then the third alternative is the most likely; other-wise, Cherlin believes, the second option in whichmarriage retains a unique status as a symbol of achieve-ment and prestige may prevail, at least in the short term.

Coontz (2004) notes that the pace of current trends ham-pers the ability to determine which are part of thetransition and which are outcomes. Weighing in to themore public debate, Coontz (2004: 979) states that thefundamental changes to marriage at both the institutionaland the individual level are such that “there will be noturning back”. While she believes that marriage will notdisappear entirely, global trends lead her to conclude thatthe previously dominant role of marriage in a range ofsocial and personal domains has passed. Along with otherauthors, Coontz recommends that the focus of researchand practice should be on strengthening all relationships,regardless of their form.

Given that the trends in marriage and cohabitation,divorce and ex-nuptial births in Australia are not dissimi-lar to those in the United States and Western Europe, dowe need to consider whether marriage in Australia is at acrossroads? Indications are that the place of marriage inthe Australian kinship system is changing, but the extentof that change is difficult to determine. Although 75 percent of couples live together before marrying, cohabitationprior to marriage is less widely accepted where childrenbecome involved (de Vaus and Wolcott 1997). The legaldistinctions between marriage and cohabitation havediminished in the recent past but there are still some cir-cumstances in which married and cohabiting couples arenot regarded as equal – in particular, when a cohabitingrelationship dissolves (Caruana 2002). What are the long-term implications of these trends for Australian maritaland cohabiting relationships?

In contrast to Coontz’s (2004) declaration that marriage aswe have known it for the past two centuries has vanished,the scenarios offered by contributors to the special NCFRconference edition of the Journal of Marriage and Familyare relatively cautious. As the authors note, the socialchanges contributing to the trends in marriage and cohab-itation are in transition. These overseas researchers havemore of the key information on which to base their con-clusions than is available in the Australian context. WhileAustralian teenagers appear to expect to marry and have afamily by the end of their twenties (Smart 2002), there islittle current in-depth understanding in Australia aboutwhat marriage and cohabitation actually mean to them –for example, their views on the purpose of marriage, itsvalue as an institution, and whether cohabitation is per-ceived as a prelude, or an alternative, to marriage. Until wehave this kind of data, any consideration of the future ofmarriage in Australia is constrained by the lack of vitalinformation about the value of marriage and its role in thelives of those for whom it is likely to be most relevant.